Sure it was awhile ago, but I just can't help but believe that things haven't changed that much.
Afterall, this is when the seeds of ecological extremism were planted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
13 Worst Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970
By Jon Gabriel on April 22, 2013

The 1970s were a lousy decade. Embarrassing movies, dreadful music and downright terrifying clothes reflected the national mood following an unpopular war, endless political scandals and a faltering economy.

Popular culture was consumed with decline, especially Hollywood. The Omega Man, Soylent Green, Damnation Alley and countless other dystopian films showed a planet wrecked by war, pollution and neglect. In large part, the entertainment industry was reflecting the culture at large.

In 1970, the first Earth Day was celebrated — okay, “celebrated” doesn’t capture the funereal tone of the event. The events (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded.

Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:

1."Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald
2."We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
3."Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." — New York Times editorial
4."Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
5."Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich
6."It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
7."Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
8."In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine
9."At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
10."Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich
11."By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
12."[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." — Newsweek magazine
13."The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt
Quotes from "Earth Day, Then and Now," by Ronald Bailey, Reason.com. May 1, 2000.

Russian research into the suns known cycles has been quoted in todays paper. It is claiming that the world (Northern Hemesphere in particular) may soon be plunged into a 200 to 250 year cooling cycle similar to that between 1650 and 1850, which caused the so called 'Little Ice Age.'

They claim ( Vladimir Kett yakov from the Russian Academy of Sciences, along with scientists from Pulkovo Observatory in St Petersburg) that this reduced period of solar activity could start between 2030, and 2040, but should not be quite so severe as in the 17th century. The early signs of cooling are already there, they claim, and the trait may pick up in the coming years. ( We've just emerged from our fourth severe Winter, this one being the coldest yet, and for warmers to just keep insisting it's only weather, is wearing a little thin, especially when predictions are for the series to continue for a further decade.)

Of course this solar cycle is known by all, but what the new research is claiming is that the effects have previously (by warmers) been grossly underestimated., and will dwarf any future warming trend. Vladimir is quoted as saying, ' there are no grounds to claim that global warming will continue to the end of this century, and that forces of nature are far more powerful than human activity, and industrial discharges.' They also estimate that when this cooling takes full effect, the temperature drop could amount to several degrees!

So! Is it fry, or freeze? If this prediction is credible it will be proven by events in 20 to 40 years time.

NW30 obviously has no interest in science or the credibility of his postings. Goddard is a completely fraud--an electrical engineer. A little more about him:

Quote:

Background

Steven Goddard is a global warming skeptic and guest author at the climate change skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). The name "Steven Goddard" is a pseudonym, and there is a suggestion that Anthony Watts of WUWT knows Goddard's real name. [2]

Goddard is known for a 2008 article in The Register where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement. [3], [4]

Goddard operates a blog titled "Real Science" blog, originally Real-Science.com, and now as the Wordpress blog Real Science. Goddard has gone to some lengths to keep his identity hidden and his blog's web domain has been blocked from any identifying WhoIs information.

Stance on Climate Change

"Global temperatures in 2012 are cooler than they were 22 years ago. The only colder period since 1990 was after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.

Scientists have been quite lucky about the lack of large volcanic eruptions this century, which has allowed them to continue fooling the particularly weak-minded about global warming." [5]

More seriously, a search for the nature of the article turns up every right wing denial site in a big hurry. Digging a little deeper, it seems he has the chops--a Phd in astrophysics. But the press release for the study--repeated virtually everywhere verbatim, doesn't indicate the basis for his research. It appears, but will remain to be seen, that he is backcasting solar cycles and looking for a statistical pattern. If so, that doesn't capture the current physics. It is also pretty much impossible to detect a 200 year cycle with the poor fidelity of information we have about solar activity over the last 500 years. It will be interesting to watch this play out.

One of his recommendations, which is pretty smart, is to not count on the Arctic to be ice free from here on and invest in massive exploration and preparation for shipping. We all know that it is hard to distinguish trend from noise, so it is entirely possible that much of the clearing of ice in the Arctic is in fact noise.

I notice that libs like Mac present facts on all sides of the debate and conservatives only repeated counter info.
Why does partisan politics define people's position on this?
This is science folks., not socialism.

Why would Russia want to convince people that the earth is cooling? Could it have something to do with that their economy is largely dependant on energy exports linked to" global warming"? Perhaps they are playing the same game as the rest of the energy industry. i.e.gas. coal oil.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum